Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 Jan 1968

Vol. 232 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26—Local Government (Resumed)

Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £10 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1968, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil, lena n-áirítear Deontais d'Údaráis Áitiúla, Deontais agus Costais eile i ndáil le Tithíocht, agus Scéimeanna agus Deontais Ilghnéitheacha lena n-áirítear Deontais-i-gCabhair áirithe.
—(Minister for Local Government).

When I reported progress, I was speaking on the housing problem generally, and paying tribute to the engineering staffs and others who work under the control of the various county councils throughout the length and breadth of the country. I feel that any words I might utter here tonight would be wholly inadequate to convey not only my own personal feeling and my own personal respect in regard to the amount of work these people have done, but also the feeling of my constituents.

I know that many can be critical of the people in the £2,000 income bracket. It is easy to pass glib remarks or comments about our staffs and officials either at local authority level or in the Department, but I certainly appreciate that in this day and age we have with us in our office in Mayo County Council engineers and staff of the highest integrity. I do not say this lightly as I have had experience of them for 25 years. I have seen them come and go. I have heard thrown lightly around words like "corruption" and "bribery", but I am proud to put on the records of this House that I know of no such happenings in my part of the country.

We have in our county engineer a man of the highest integrity, a man who on many occasions disagrees with us, the elected representatives, at county council level, but we have to bear in mind that he and his staff have many difficulties and many problems, not the least of which is the big mileage of roads, to which I have already referred, and the housing problems and many other problems that confront them. We should bear in mind— and I certainly do—that the people who man these offices and who are our technical advisers, are the sheet anchor of any development plans we may have in hand in relation to roads, sewerage schemes, water schemes and anything else.

From time to time people from the USA, from England and elsewhere tell us—but perhaps they are not telling us the truth—what can be done when you pass money around. Whether we have a Fianna Fáil Government or any other Government in office, it is grand to think that we have dependable people, people in whom we can place our confidence, people who are tried and tested, on our staffs. I want to go on the records of this House in saying that no man is more proud than I am that we have such people in Mayo from the top down to the most junior official, and in the Department of Local Government as well. It is very easy to throw out these hints which may be swallowed at the crossroads, but the people who throw out these hints and suggestions and remarks usually find it is unprofitable to do so. If a thing is true by all means let us say it, but we should be able to stand over it.

I should now like to pass on to another matter to which I think we should pay more attention. If we have no other responsibility, we have an administrative responsibility to put up road signs. The county council staffs put up road signs to indicate where there are beauty spots and so forth. We are somewhat lacking in this regard in County Mayo and I feel this very much because in the course of my work, I travelled around quite a lot, and although we may think we are familiar with a particular area, there are certain abbeys and old monasteries and public buildings we would like to visit on our journeys, and perhaps show to our wives and children or to people who cannot always get around on their own, and the signposting of these historic places is of the greatest importance.

It was my privilege in my time to travel through a number of European countries from the south to the north as far as Finland. That was ten or 11 years ago. In many cases I did not know the language but when I saw the signposts, I inquired what they indicated. Perhaps before I left the place I parted with a few pounds or a few dollars but because of the signposts I went to see what it was like. In this country we have many old and historic places which should be better signposted. There is urgent need in County Mayo for signposting.

Courthouses were mentioned by Deputy P. O'Donnell and other Deputies. I suppose Deputy O'Donnell is familiar with the problems of courthouses by reason of his law practice. My only association with them is to read in the local papers, perhaps, that some district justice or someone else "kicked up a shine" because of lack of heating, or the poor condition of the building generally. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that when litigants in rural areas cycle or motor in to the courthouse when a case is being heard before a district justice or a High Court judge, they should find that the courthouse has been brought up to presentday standards. In that regard much remains to be done. I know some of them which would need, to use a slang term, a "once-over" to improve the heating and seating. Perhaps a little paint would also improve them. Because this was referred to already, I think I have said enough on the subject.

On the question of derating, I know many people who have benefited in some cases by £1 or £2, in some cases by £15 or £20, and in other cases by greater amounts, as a result of the derating of agricultural land. I live in a rural area and what I have said now, generally speaking, would be stating the position truthfully and honestly as I know it. Some people have gained £1 or £2 and others have gained £15 or £20. In the time that lies ahead we in Mayo County Council will be facing, probably in the month of March, a rates estimate in which we must examine the overall position in relation to the different services administered by the county council. We are definitely facing an increase of something in the region of 7/- to 10/- in the £ in rates. That is a serious burden on people who have a big problem in trying to keep going, provide the necessaries of life and educate their children.

A section of the community for whom I have great sympathy comprises those who live in small towns and villages, towns of 500 or fewer up to those with 1,000 or 5,000 or more. These people have not gained as a result of derating but they are certainly worthy of sympathy and support here. Perhaps five or 15 years ago the bread-winner was engaged in a small business in Charlestown, Swinford, Foxford or some such town. He may have died and the business may have suffered in consequence. He may have been in the confectionery line or something similar; he may have been a tradesman, a joiner, or something like that. I know small towns, as I have canvassed them like others engaged in politics, and you find those poor people suffering in silence, doing their best. The widow may even provide for her children the food she would need herself for her own health. These people deserve our consideration.

I appreciate that it is a big task for any Minister or Department to go into all these matters and separate the wheat from the chaff. No matter how well-intentioned a Minister or Department may be, in view of all the difficulties, it would take time to assess the real extent of the problem. In many rural towns in the West, you have a situation in which, due to rural depopulation perhaps because of reasons I have mentioned or the fact that the breadwinner has died, large families have to face the cold winter days, try to provide fuel, light and food and other necessaries and also meet a rates demand which is a heavy burden.

I do not think the present Minister would like to evict any people from their homes or throw them out on a side street: that is not in his breed. Although compliments have not been paid to him, I am sure that if money were available to him, he would like to consider that section of the community. Recently, it seems to me, the country's economy has improved sufficiently to enable us to give consideration in some way to these people as regards relieving their rates burden. Coming from a family of smallholders myself, I appreciate that in a rural area there is some means of keeping a fire going on a winter's day—perhaps an old ash tree that can be cut down or something to keep a fire on the hearth —but in a side street in a town like Ballina, or Swinford or even Dublin for that matter, it may be a difficult matter.

I appeal to the Minister to remember those sections of the people in the matter of derating as he has remembered the smallholders. There are many widows and children involved; they are the less privileged classes to whom we should try to bring relief and try to assess the situation as far as they are concerned. The rates burden in my county and, I am sure, in many others, is a particularly serious burden for them.

Deputy O'Leary of Dublin and Deputy Healy from Cork spoke of the bad position of housing in both cities and it is my duty to speak of my own city of Kilkenny. The present housing position generally is due to the neglect of the present Government over the past ten years. The present Minister has only been a year and a half in office but he was a member of the Government and must take his share of responsibility for the present housing positions and his Government's policy in not building houses throughout the country.

Practically no houses were built in the country in those years, as far as I can gather, although we had the former Minister saying that more money was allocated to housing than ever. Only a nominal amount of housing was provided but the loan charges, of course, had to be met each year. The result is that young married people today, in a city like Kilkenny, are forced to pay anything up to £6 per week for a furnished flat. That, if anything will do so, should bring home to the Minister the present position regarding housing. It was recently brought to my notice that two well qualified tradesmen left Kilkenny because they could not get a house. One went to England where he got a house and a job. The other went to Bord na Móna because Bord na Móna provided him with a house. Both were in an engineering company and these two men are a great loss to industry in the city.

I have been on local authorities for many years and in all that time these authorities have been completely frustrated in their efforts to get sanction for house building. Only in the past two years have the local authorities been allowed to rehouse families with full subsidy out of corporation houses. You had two, three or four families living in one corporation or local authority house and one can imagine the tension that must exist in such circumstances. They had no hope; we could not rehouse them unless we got the full subsidy. Therefore, we could not build houses and people lived in very bad conditions in condemned houses. The first effort of any Government should be directed towards providing houses because decent houses are essential for the good health of the community. Housing has improved a bit over the past 12 months. An effort is being made and the Government are giving sanction to housing schemes in a fairly large way. But not enough is being done and much greater effort should be put into housing because money spent on housing is money well spent.

Those willing to provide their own homes should be encouraged as much as possible, yet the grants for this purpose have not been increased for a long number of years despite the fact that housing costs have risen tremendously over the same period. At present and for very many years, the grant is £300 from the Department and £300 from the local authority, a total of £600. The Minister said that the Government and local authorities were contributing 12s 4d of every £ spent on local authority housing, that is 60 per cent. Taking the cost of the average house you can build, the present total grant of £600 to those providing their own homes represents only about 20 per cent. I think there is a case for an increase here.

In addition, the Government in recent times have been getting the turnover tax on a lot of materials going into house building, and more recently still the wholesale tax. Some Deputies said there was a grant of £450 from the Government and a further grant of £450 from local authorities. How many are eligible for that grant? Very few. How could any small farmer put up the balance of the money? The only hope he has is to get a cottage built by the local council and pay it in the weekly rent. The reconstruction grant is £140 from the Government and £140 from the local authority. This is small in view of the fact that any major reconstruction work today costs anything from £600 to £1,000. I suggest that these two grants should be increased by at least £200.

For the past few years, it has been Government policy to build houses in rural areas. We in Kilkenny County Council have been pressing to have cottages built in rural areas because we feel that to keep people on the land, we must provide housing for them there. Apparently the policy of the Government is to build houses for these people in the towns. I had a specific case of that recently. I was pressing to have a house built for a man who was providing his own site in a rural area. The regional water scheme passes his door. He was told they were prepared to provide him with a house in the town three or four miles away and he was asked to make a case why they should provide it for him in the rural area. He said that he and all before him had been reared there and his children wanted to live there.

Despite that, I saw a letter from an official of the local authority saying that they were not prepared to accede to his request to take over the site and build a cottage for him but that they were prepared to give him a house in a nearby town. Is it Government policy to drive people off the land? Ministers may say that every other country has this problem of a flight from the land. That may be so, but is it not being accelerated by the action of the Government in not providing rural cottages and forcing people into towns where they do not want to live?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce should have been very slow to sanction the recent increase in housing loan charges. People have to pay up to seven or eight per cent to the building societies for money.

Last year my county council provided £15,000 for cottage repairs and also arranged for a loan of £10,000, making a total of £25,000 in one year, a tremendous amount. People may say we were not doing our duty up to this, but we were and doing it very fully. The reason for the heavy expenditure in one year was that in that year a very large number of cottages were being vested and had to be put into an excellent state of repair before this could be done. The result was that £15,000 did not cover the cost and we wanted to raise a loan for £10,000. We asked the Minister for sanction to that loan but he refused to give it. In November or December, the £15,000 was exhausted and we were refused sanction for the loan.

This would have been a short term loan covering only five years. With the loan, the cost on the rates would be about 1½d in the £ but the cost of raising the money directly and paying it out of the rates is 5½d. Therefore, the Minister's action in refusing to sanction the loan is directly increasing the rates in my county by 4d. That is very wrong. I would ask the Minister to change the general policy in that regard. The present repairs are more a capital cost than an ordinary cost. They are a capital cost because, as I said, the cottages must be put into an excellent state of repair prior to vesting.

I would appeal to the Minister to change his policy in regard to the building of rural cottages. If a farm labourer has a site and wants to have a cottage built on it, he should have that cottage built, provided it is in a reasonable position near a main road. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that. If he does not, he is going to clear the whole countryside of houses. Is the position that the Government do not want to have these cottages obstructing the view for the tourists, that they would rather this than have our own people living in these cottages where they always lived?

I come now to roads. Main and county road grants in Kilkenny were cut by 20 per cent this year. The previous year we got £200,000. This year we got only £150,000. With the increase of 25 per cent in road tax, members of the council felt that there would be an increase in the grants, but instead we had this cut of 20 per cent. That has resulted in unemployment in the county. For many years past county surveyors have been anxious to maintain a permanent staff in the county council, because those retiring would only be entitled to a pension or gratuity if they had 200 full working days per year. Naturally, the surveyors were anxious to cut down on casual employment and have permanent employment. But with the reduction in the road grants this year, I have noticed that any man retiring from the council at present is not being replaced, the idea being that through retirement, they hope to reduce the demand on the amount received in grants and rates. The machinery is not being fully utilised. It is not economic. In the main there are men with shovels labouring on the roads so that they may be kept in employment up to the end of the year.

The county road grant has been considerably reduced. That means that improvements cannot be carried out. Roads which were completed within the past two or three years have to be retarred. The result is that there will be scarcely five miles of roads done in Kilkenny.

We are fortunate in Kilkenny in that the county council were sufficiently enterprising to demand a greatly increased rate for county roads with the result that 80 per cent of the roads are dust free. There should be a maintenance grant for county roads just as for arterial roads so that the county roads would be properly maintained. We had a five year scheme for the completion of all the roads but the grants were considerably reduced and it was not possible to complete the scheme. Kilkenny county council raised a loan of £30,000 for the repair of culs-de-sac and laneways. This was of considerable advantage where two or more farmers resided in a cul-de-sac. Last year and again this year the Minister has refused sanction for the raising of this £30,000. This work also had the advantage that it provided employment. As was mentioned at Question Time today. the unemployment figure is the highest for many years. Not only did the Minister refuse to sanction the raising of the £30,000, but he also refused to receive a deputation from the council.

The county council are keen to improve the county and to provide housing accommodation. If that is not done, people will emigrate. In this respect the county council are not getting any assistance from the Government. I am sure the Minister will receive a further application in regard to the raising of £30,000 so that the work to which I have referred may be continued.

I would ask the Minister to have grants announced in reasonable time. At the estimates meeting nobody can tell what the grant for the following year is likely to be. It is a matter of guesswork.

The Rural Improvement Scheme has been handed over to the local council by the Office of Public Works. Kilkenny is receiving the large sum of £3,500 under that scheme. As one member said, it could be spent on a parish.

Regional water schemes involve too much delay in surveying and development. In some cases they may take ten to 15 years. The result is that many people who would be delighted to avail of a regional water scheme have sunk pumps for their private water supply and the regional water scheme is, therefore, less remunerative than it otherwise would be.

I attended the opening of a very fine group scheme recently in Kilkenny. I know of one case where a person applied for a grant for connection with a group scheme. He had installed a water tank of 7,000 gallon capacity and therefore his application for a grant for connection with the group scheme was rejected. That is a deplorable position. The person to whom I refer has a young family. Some years ago he installed a toilet and bathroom in his house and a rain-water supply to the kitchen and was glad to be able to do it and that was the only thing possible for him at that time. The position appears to be that a person who has a tank with a capacity of over 3,000 gallons will not get a grant for connection to a group scheme. In my view, an enterprising person such as I have described should be the first to get a grant when a group scheme comes into operation.

There should not be undue delay in the payment of grants. There may be a scarcity of money and in that case people should be told that they cannot get grants for some months rather than be told that the file is with the inspector. I know of one case where a person whose house has been completed for two years has not yet got the grant for that house. That is most unfair. I would appeal to the Minister to pay the grants so that applicants would not have to appeal constantly to TDs to make representation on their behalf.

I would again ask the Minister to introduce a crash programme of housing so that persons living in overcrowded conditions would get suitable accommodation in the foreseeable future—I suppose that is about the best one can say.

The usual statement made by the Government and in particular by the Minister in regard to the question of money for housing is that there is more money available this year than there was last year. I do not think that is a very fair or honest statement. In the year 1965 the cost of a five-roomed house fully serviced in my constituency was £3,300. The cost without central heating was £2,850. That is a type of house that must be built to the Department of Local Government's specifications in order to qualify for a grant. The increase in the cost of such a house over the period of three years is in the region of £350.

The Government cannot close their eyes to the causes of that increase in cost. The first cause was the turnover tax. Then in the following year there was the wholesale tax. Now we have some Ministers—I must say in fairness to the Minister for Local Government that I did not hear him make this statement—telling us that the devaluation of the pound will not have any effect on building. On 1st January this year, the price of timber went up by five per cent. At the moment there is an application with the Department of Industry and Commerce for a further increase of 20 per cent. Very often when people think of timber going into a house, they think of timber in a room, but one must include ceiling joints, wooden floors, windows, doors and every other place where a piece of timber is used in the erection of a house. It will be rather interesting to see how high the price will go. Copper and instanter fittings have increased already by 22 per cent; hard woods have increased by 25 per cent; galvanised gutters have increased by 20 per cent. The unfortunate people who cannot afford either to build a house or to reconstruct their own house but have to take advantage of section 5 of the Housing Act will find that the price of galvanised iron—again the application is with the Department—is expected to increase by £7 to £8 per ton, equivalent to 2d per foot. For some weeks past there has been no galvanised iron whatsoever available to the trade for the reason that they are waiting to get the O.K. from the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not think the stock answer, that there is more money available this year than was available last year, will suffice any more. There would want to be a great deal more money available next year than last, either that or housing will completely stop.

There is an obligation on this House and particularly on the Government Party to examine the way they have been treating the private people who are trying to build their own houses. I admit that a farmer with a valuation of under £25 will get a grant of £450 from the Department of Local Government. He will also get a grant of £450 from the local authority if his valuation is under £25 or if he is a person that the local authority is entitled to house. That is the maximum grant that can be got. It is still only £900, and these unfortunate people are asked to find another £2,000 if they want to build a new house. I have not a clue where they would get it. The Minister would be quite safe in offering them twice that much. They will not take it because they cannot afford it. They have no capital and cannot get it. Even if they could get it they could not afford to pay the interest charges. The demand on that fund will be very limited, and the demand on it has been very limited.

As regards people with a valuation of over £25 or people whom the local authority is not entitled to house, the maximum grant they can get is £300 from the Department of Local Government and £300 from the local authority. Let us examine the grants that are paid for the reconstruction of a house. For the reconstruction of a five-roomed house the maximum grant is £140. If the estimate is £420 the maximum grant again is £140 from the local authority so that the cost of reconstructing the house is only £300. The applicant himself will have to contribute £100, the Department of Local Government will contribute £140, and the county council £60. He must contribute one-third of the total cost himself, and I can see the point in that. However, this is the point I cannot see: if the estimate is £700, the applicant still gets £140 from the Department of Local Government and only £140 from the county council; he himself has to find £420. If it works fairly well the first way, it certainly must work in the very same way in the second case. It is unfair to ask one man to pay more than the other, the man living in a five-roomed house that has probably deteriorated much more than that of the other man who is living in a five-roomed house. There could be many reasons for the deterioration, for instance, family circumstances. If he lets the house go that far it is quite obvious that he has less capital than the person who has got a higher percentage grant than he has. The Minister should look into that.

I should also like to make reference to the delay in the payment of grants. Any time you go into the Department of Local Government to ask about a case, the stock answer is that the file is out with the inspector. It is the same as when we are told by the Minister here and outside the House that there is more money available for housing this year than was available last year. I think the delay is due to carelessness on the part of the officials in the Department of Local Government. Last week I was in the Department of Local Government with no less than 86 cases from a very confined area. I believe it is carelessness more than a lack of money, but if it is money, let the Minister or the Department tell the applicant the position. Whatever the reason is, the Minister should investigate the position and see what is wrong.

As regards road grants, there has been, over the whole country, a reduction in the region of £750,000 in road grants last year. In that particular year the people who had cars were asked to pay 25 per cent increase in tax and were asked to make a further contribution by way of petrol tax; and at the same time road grants were reduced. In County Roscommon road grants were reduced by £47,470; in County Leitrim they were reduced by £25,690.

Being a member of a local authority for a number of years, I may say that we usually have trouble at this time of the year in that, in framing the estimates, we have no word from the Department of Local Government as to what the allocations of road grants will be. I think our estimates meeting is fixed for 10th or 12th February. I would ask the Minister to make sure that local authorities are notified in time for the estimates meeting with regard to the amount of money which will be available for grants in the coming financial year.

Another detrimental effect as a result of the reduction in road grants in these two counties is the fact that a large number of small farmers can no longer supplement their incomes by working on the roads for the county council. That kind of work is dwindling every year, dwindling because of the introduction of machinery, because of the use of gravel instead of stone and because of the reduction in the amount allocated. I would appeal to the Minister to put the grant this year back to where it was last year.

I should like to make a short reference to the handing over of rural improvements schemes to county councils. It seems to me now that minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvements schemes will be amalgamated and, instead of a ten per cent in the £ contribution in the case of a valuation under £5, it will now be 2½ per cent. We are told that the amount of money allocated is assessed over the past three years and one-third of that will be allocated this year. A county in which £60,000 was spent over the last three years will get one-third, or £20,000. I do not know how reasonable that allocation is, but there is one thing I do know: for the past three years, one could not get an application form out of the Special Employment Schemes Office for minor relief schemes. It was impossible to get any allocation for bog development or rural improvements schemes. I am quite certain that the number of applications received by the Special Employment Schemes Office will eat up more than the amount of money available this year and that means the local authority will not be able to accept any further applications.

It is all very well for the Minister to use the local authority occasionally, but, if we are now to be used as a face saver for the Department of Finance, the situation is getting pretty desperate. People living in Dublin do not realise the hardships endured by those living in rural Ireland. Perhaps there are two or three families living up a boreen, a lane, a by-road—call it what you like—who have to plough their way down these water-logged and pot-holed means of access to and from their homes. Ten years ago there may have been ten families living up these boreens; the number is now reduced to two or three. Very often these people have to carry a pair of shoes so that they can change out of their Wellingtons and go into town or to church decently clad. That is the situation. When these people reach the main road, they see the results of the lavish expenditure on these roads, but there seems to be no money to improve the roads leading to these people's homes.

With regard to rates, the Minister made some reference to shifting the burden of taxation from local authorities to the Exchequer. That, at least, was the interpretation I took. I am not too clear what he meant. But there is one matter upon which I am very clear. I heard the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, speaking on behalf of Fianna Fáil in Carrick-on-Shannon in the last general election telling the people—I shall never forget his words —that the present rating system was outmoded and outdated. He may have gone into retirement since but I am entitled to ask the Government, in the name of the people he addressed that night, what they have done about this outmoded and outdated system. Every year since those people have had to pay increasing rates, some years an increase of 6/- in the £, some years perhaps an increase of 4/- in the £, and this year they will have to pay an increase of at least 8/- in the £. There is an onus on the Minister for Local Government to tell us now what change he intends to make in this outmoded and outdated system.

To show how outmoded and outdated the system is, take two adjacent houses on which the valuation is £5 and the rates are £3 in the £. One of those houses may be occupied by an old age pensioner living on a miserable 47s 6d per week; if she is the owner of the house that is all she will get. The other house may be occupied by a husband, his wife and two or three children, who may be working. That family will pay the same rates as the old age pensioner. Certainly that system is, to use the then Taoiseach's words, both outmoded and outdated. It is a long way from the just society.

Most of the businesses in the towns of Leitrim and Roscommon are family businesses. These people are being squeezed out by the supermarkets and others. They have also lost a great deal of business because of emigration. Yet they are asked to pay ever-increasing rates, year in and year out. Unless the Minister shifts some of the burden from local authorities it will be quite impossible for these people to meet the demand which will be made on them.

I want to make a short reference to regional water schemes. These were first mooted in 1959. The Minister for Local Government at the time got in touch with every county council and told them to speed up their piped water schemes, to send them up as quickly as possible to the Department; it was only a matter of getting sanction. The net result was every county council employed consultants and planners. There were lengthy discussions and big headlines in the local papers. I do not think that was accidental. It all happened prior to the 1961 general election and, since then, one has to ask oneself what has become of these schemes. In my own county, we have one scheme known as the Cloone-Mohill scheme with the Department for the past 2½ years and nothing has been done about it. We have another scheme, the Carrick-on-Shannon — Jamestown scheme, with the Department for 12 to 18 months and there has been no word of its being sanctioned.

When the people read the headlines in the local press and saw the statements from the then Minister for Local Government, they felt that it was just a matter of waiting for a few weeks before they got a piped water supply. Every county manager in the country seemed to have received instructions from the Custom House not to put up a pump anywhere, that the people would have rural water in no time at all. That was 1959 and 1960 and it is now 1968, and we still have no rural water supplies. If that is the way the Department of Local Government is going to run matters, the sooner they tell the truth to the people the better.

Ó thárla gur i nGaeilge a chuir mé tús lem ráiteas i dtosach na díospóireachta seo. b'fhéidir nár mhisde dhom freagra a thabhairt i dtosach ar na pointí go ndearna an Teachta Mac Eochagáin tagairt dóibh.

Thrácht sé ar na fadhbanna a bhaineann le cúrsaí pleanála ins na Gaeltachtaí agus i gceantracha mar iad agus luaidh sé go speisialta Cois Fhairrge agus Bruacha Loch Coirib. Tá sé tábhachtach áilneacht agus tréithe speisialta áiteacha mar seo a chaomhnadh don náisiún ach ar an dtaobh eile dhe is ghnáthach go mbíonn na feirmeacha beag agus an talamh bocht ina leithéid d'áit agus is mó an cruatan tairiscint tógála nó forbairt a thoirmisc i gcás mar sin ná an ghnáth-chás. Tuigim mar sin gur cheart bheith an-chúramach ar fad ins na h-áiteacha seo agus gur cheart gach iarracht a dhéanamh chun teacht ar réiteach a ligfidh do mhuinítir na h-áite an tairbhe is fearr a bhaint as a sealbh. Thairis sin ar fad, ar ndóigh caithfear ceist na teangan a thógaint san áireamh ins an Ghaeltacht agus fágann san nach féidir breithiúnas a dhéanamh ar thairiscint sa Ghaeltacht de réir gnáth-phrionsabail pleanála amháin a bheidh i bhfeidhm in áiteacha eile.

Mar is eol don Teachta Mac Eochagáin, tá staidéar phleanála faoi leith á dhéanamh ar an gCeathramhan Rua agus an réigiún a ghabhann leis faoi láthair agus tá an staidéar sin á leathnú do Gaeltacht Cois Fhairrge ar fad. Tá sé soiléir go gcaithfear an rud céanna a dhéanamh do chuile Ghaeltacht sar tír. Luíonn sé le nádúr nach bhféadfaí plé le réigiún Gaeltachta mar Ghaeltacht i bplean a bheadh bunaithe ar chontae iomlán nó réigiún níos mó ná sin. Dála an scéil, tá agóid faighte agam ó Choisde Comhairleach na Gaeilge in aghaidh na ndréacht-phleananna dos na contaethe go bhfuil Gaeltachtaí iontu. B'fhéidir nárbh fhearr rud a dhéan ná aire an Teachta Mhic Eochagáin agus na h-eagraíochtaí Gaeilge a dhíriú ar an méid a dhubhairt mé faoin gceist seo ag oscailt na díospóireachta dom. Seo arís é:—

Tá forbairt na limistéirí Gaeltachta ar cheann de na chúraim is tábhachtaí dá bhfuil orm ó thaobh na seirbhísí rialtais áitiúil. Aidhm bunúsach an Ghaeilge a chaomhnadh agus úsáid na teagan a leathnú, agus tá tábhacht ar leith ag na limistéirí Gaeltachta i bhfeidhmiú an bheartais náisiúnta seo. Caithfear áilneacht an dúlraidh san Ghaeltacht a chosaint i gcoimhréir le haidhmeanna eile. Ina leith seo, ghlac mé mar chúram orm féin go dtabharfaí lán-aitheantas don bheartas náisiúnta i leith forbairt na Gaeltachta sna pleananna forbartha do na réigiúin sin. Tar éis dul i gcomhairle le hAire na Gaeltachta, agus leis na húdáráis áitiúla, tá socraithe agam go n-ullmhófar pleananna forbartha ar leith do na limistéirí Gaeltachta. Chun tábhacht na Gaeltachta i gcúrsaí pleanála a dhaingniú, tá ordú déanta agam ag ainmniú Aire na Gaeltachta chun bheith ina údarás ceaptha chun críocha an Achta Rialtais Áitiúil (Pleanáil agus Forbairt), 1963. Sé mo chuspóir go ndéanfar gach dícheall chun tithe, soláthair uisce, séarachas, bóithre níos fearr agus seirbhísí eile a chur ar fáil sna limistéirí Gaeltachta i dtreo is go mbeidh sé ar chumas na limiséirí sin lán-tairbhe a bhaint as na deiseanna atá ann le haghaidh forbairt tionsclaíochta, talmhaíochta agus cuartaíochta.

Sin dréacht ó mo ráiteas a chuir tús leis an Meastacháin.

Más rud é nach féidir prionsabail phleanála agus cúis na teangan agus caomhnú na teangan sa Ghaeltacht a réitiú le chéile caithfidh an lá bheith ag an aidhm bunúsach náisiúnta. Mar sin, má tharlaíonn i gcás iarratais ar bith sa Ghaeltacht go ndiúltófaí cead de réir phrionsabail a bheadh i bhfeidhm mar ghnáth-phrionsabail in áiteacha eile faoin tír, agus má bhíonn an táiriscint sin ar mhaithe leis an dteanga, nó ar mhaithe le heacnamaíocht nó le caomhnú na Gaeltachta, ba chóir cead a thabhairt sa chás sin. Agus má cuirfear achomharc faoi mo bhráid-se i gcás dá leithéid tabharfar an cead.

Rinne an Teachta Mac Eochagáin tagairt don chaiteachas ar na bóithre. Dar leis, tá an iomarca á caitheamh faoi láthair ar na bóithre móra agus ba chóir níos mó a chaitheamh ar na mion-bhóithre a fhreastalann ar mhuintir an dúthaigh ina mbíonn an obair ar siúl. B'fhuiriste a thuigsint go mbeadh an dearcadh seo ag mórán daoine ach ní aontóidh tiománaithe leis na tuairimí seo agus, ar ndóigh, is uathu sin a thagann cuid mór den chaiteachas seo. Tá tábhacht mór ag baint le chóras taistil ó thaobh na h-eacnamaíochta. Ar an dtaobh eile den scéal, tá tábhacht ag baint leis na mion-bhóithre i gcaighdeán beatha na tire agus sí an fhadhbh atá ann ná an méid airgid atá ar fáil a chaitheamh san slí is fearr ag tógaint chuile rud san áireamh. Glacaim leis go bhfuil contúirt ann dá dtabharfaí faoin iomarca a dhéanamh ró-scioptha ar bóithre móra nach bhféadfaí dul chun chinn a dhéanamh leis na mion-bhoithre agus go gcaíthfear bheith aireach gan é sin a dhéanamh.

When one considers how closely the various activities of the Department of Local Government affect the everyday lives of the whole community, both as regards essential services and amenities, it is not surprising that the debate on the Estimate should be a fairly long one. I think it was unnecessarily prolonged on this occasion because so many Deputies insist on ignoring the fact that we have local authorities in this country and that it is through the local authorities that these services are administered in individual areas. The result was that a lot of time was taken up here in discussing matters which are really the concern of individual local authorities and which can only be dealt with at local level.

As I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, I do not propose to deal with individual matters which are the concern of individual local authorities and which, in most instances, were raised by Deputies who are themselves members of the local authorities concerned and who know that it is only at that level that these matters can be dealt with effectively. I would merely point out to these Deputies that if they and their colleagues would use local authorities for the proper purpose instead of for political play-acting, there would be much less dissatisfaction.

In view of the fact that the Department of Local Government is so much concerned with our living environment, it is inevitable that it will always be possible to look for improvements. This Estimate we are supposed to have been discussing shows that the provision of these improvements is an expensive business. Nobody speaking on the Estimate referred to the amount of money this provides for, or referred to the relationship of that total of money to the total amount of revenue or, indeed, to the relationship of the total amount of money that was raised by way of revenue by the State and the local authorities to the total national income. I have become accustomed now, between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Local Government, to hearing Opposition Deputies speaking on these Estimates magnanimously offering to vote as much more money as is necessary in order to remedy, forthwith, all the deficiencies in the various services administered by these two Departments that still remain. I have pointed out before, and I have no doubt that I will have to point out again, that such offers, to vote as much more money as is necessary, at this time of the year, are absolutely meaningless. There is no point whatever in offering to vote more money for any of these services because money cannot be effectively voted unless arrangements are made to collect it and the only source from which the Government can collect it is from the pockets of

An offer, then, to vote more money the people.

is realistic only in the context of the budget when it can be put forward as a serious, genuine and complete offer and when it can conclude an amendment to the budget proposals in order to raise the necessary extra money. My experience has been that at that time of the year there is never a suggestion that any tax should be increased or that any new tax should be imposed. I have never heard it yet, but we on this side of the House generally accept the position that the Government have gone as far as is fair and as far as is feasible in the matter of the redistribution of income. Opposition Deputies, however, invariably contend that we have gone much too far and they represent the taxpayer as being over-burdened and demand tax reductions. Whatever may be said, therefore, of the Estimate debates for any of these Departments which are involved mainly with the expending of the money collected through the medium of the budget proposals, it is a fact that at the really important time the Opposition demand is for a cut-back on all these services since the demand is for the imposition of less taxation.

The services under the auspices of the Department of Local Government, of course, involve, as I said in my opening statement, total revenue expenditure to the tune of £107.71 million. There is general agreement that there is little scope for any increase in that. All the services which are provided, whether under the Department of Local Government, Health, Education, or Social Welfare, can only be realistically considered in the light of the problem of financing them and demands for improvements which do not take account of the capacity of the community to provide the money are not worth serious consideration. The fact is, whether Opposition Deputies like it or not, that only a limited proportion of the national income can safely be taken through local or central taxation for purposes which are not directly productive, however desirable these purposes may be, if economic advance is not to be inhibited, or if individual hardship is not to be caused.

Of course, the ultimate solution of all our social problems depends on economic advance. I believe that the Government should aim every year to go as close as possible to collecting this critical percentage of the national income and to allocate it as equitably as possible among the various purely social services and among the services provided by my Department which are in the main both productive and social in character.

I am entirely satisfied that this in fact is what happens under the present Government. Similarly the amount of money that can be acquired by the Government in any year for its capital programme is also limited and is regulated by the state of the economy at the time. Here again I am satisfied that the amount raised for this purpose every year under the present Government has been decided in accordance with an estimate of the maximum amount that it will be possible to obtain from the community. The requirements of my Department, such as roads, houses, water, sewerage, swimming pools, community centres, parks, and other amenities, are all urgent and they are so urgent that demands for more rapid progress are understandable. I doubt if there was ever a Minister for Local Government who was completely satisfied with the amount of money he got for the conduct of all these services under his Department in any year. Certainly, I have not been satisfied yet and I do not expect to be, but I am satisfied that a fair allocation of the total amount of the money it is possible to get from the community has been made in every year under the present Government. This year, for instance, out of the total State capital expenditure of £109 million, £29 million, or more than one-quarter of the total, has been allocated to the Department of Local Government.

When the speeches of Opposition Deputies are analysed, it will be seen that they amount to a claim for the full amount that it has been possible to raise for capital purposes, if indeed not for more. I need hardly say that just as the Opposition Deputies apparently would like me to have more than £29 million for capital purposes this year I would like to have it also but when we take into account the fact that there is also capital expenditure for other Departments, such as Health and Education, I think it is clear that a very high percentage of the total amount it is possible to come by is, in fact, allocated to social purposes or to purposes such as my Department's purposes which are, as I said, both social and productive.

If all the money which it was possible to raise for capital purposes were to be allocated in any one year to purposes that are not directly productive I say it would be foolish in the extreme to do this, because to do it would starve economic undertakings of the capital necessary for further development which is essential if our social problems are to be solved. We have quite clearly been allocating the maximum feasible amount of our resources to various services coming within the sphere of my Department. In none of these areas, I fully and freely admit, have we reached the end of the road, but considerable progress has been made and the overall position is improving year by year.

More important still is the fact that the approach in each case is planned so that this progress will be continuous. To give one example, great care is being taken to ensure that there will never be a repetition of the disastrous neglect of the acquisition of land and the preparation of plans for housing by the Coalition Government from 1954 to 1957 which, added to the decimation of the building industry, which followed on the collapse at that time, made it impossible to get local authority housing going at a reasonable rate for from three to four years.

Listening to Opposition speakers, one would never realise that this was a Department spending each year a greater amount of total national income for the benefit of the community as a whole. It was, as I said, spending this year more than one quarter of the total State capital expenditure for this purpose. In fact, the Department of Local Government is one of the principal Departments which constitute the shop window through which the Government demonstrate their realisation of their fundamental duty not merely to ensure economic expansion but also to ensure that the resulting increased prosperity is used to improve all-round living standards. The activities of the Department of Local Government, therefore, are one of the principal reasons why this Government have been successful in Waterford, South Kerry, Cork and West Limerick by-elections.

(Cavan): Does the Minister really think he was successful there? I did not think he was.

Deputy S. French was here a moment ago: Deputy G. Collins was here: Deputy P. Browne is here and Deputy O'Leary is here. They are all Members of the Dáil.

(Cavan): Does the Minister think a drop of 3,000 in his voting power was a success?

Four new Fianna Fáil Deputies out of four by-elections in succession—something that never happened before to a Government or an Opposition. I think that is successful. If Deputy Fitzpatrick thinks his Party were successful, I am quite happy to leave him in that frame of mind.

If the Minister is so complacent, why does he want to abolish PR?

PR was not raised. On the question of abolishing PR, the evidence is there to show that so far as the Government Party are concerned, things were never better. We have never at any time won four by-elections together. We won three general elections in succession and four by-elections. We will go on to win two more by-elections as soon as you get the courage to move the writs in Clare and Wicklow. The activities of the Department of Local Government will be one of the main reasons why we will win the fifth by-election in Clare and the sixth by-election in Wicklow.

(Cavan): The Minister's Party vote dropped by 3,000 with a brand new Taoiseach in the Taoiseach's own constituency. Was that a victory?

I will discuss the byelection in Cork for as long as Deputy Fitzpatrick likes. We went into the by-election in Cork with three seats out of five, and we came out with four seats out of five.

(Cavan): With a brand new Taoiseach, you dropped 3,000 votes.

We will retain those four seats in Cork at the next general election, whether it is on the present system or the single seat constituency. The Deputy need have no doubt about that.

(Cavan): The Minister is whistling passing the graveyard.

As I was saying, the activities of the Department of Local Government, combined with the activities of the purely social welfare Departments such as the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Health and the Department of Education, are the reasons why we retain the support of the people. The people know that it is only under Fianna Fáil that progress is made in any of these things. They know that whatever the Parties opposite may say when they are out of office, when they get the opportunity no progress is made in those things.

(Cavan): The Minister is afraid to trust the people again.

They are not sincere. They make unrealistic promises they are not able to honour. I was pleased and flattered to see from my perusal of the report of the speeches made on this Estimate in the Official Report—I was not here for them all—how keenly members of the Opposition have followed the procedings of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis as reported in the papers and, in particular, at the close attention they paid to the Taoiseach's address. I was flattered that they were impressed. I can assure the Opposition that they are on the right lines in being guided by the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis as to the matters which are important. All the Opposition Deputies in this House will benefit if they keep up this interest in the future. In fact, I am one of the honorary secretaries of the Fianna Fáil Party and I think I can say that if the Opposition have this same interest in the future, if they would like to hire a neighbouring hall to the Mansion House, we would be quite pleased to relay the proceedings of our Ard-Fheis, or at least the Taoiseach's speech, for their edification and benefit. They will then get an object lesson of the vigour, democracy and genuine concern for the wellbeing of the people as a whole which keeps us over here and them where they are. Although Opposition Deputies had only Press reports to guide them, they made no mistake in picking out housing as the most important matter that was discussed at the Ard-Fheis and as the most important item in the Taoiseach's presidential address.

The Taoiseach made it quite clear that we regard the provision of houses for our people, whether they can pay for them or not, as an item of first priority in regard to the utilisation of the fruits of the economic growth now taking place. The Taoiseach put the problem clearly, demonstrated its magnitude—which is something Opposition Deputies do not do—and out-lined how it is being tackled, and how it will be tackled in the future.

In my statement introducing this Estimate, I presented the facts to the House more than once, so there is no excuse for Deputies not knowing exactly what the position is. We had complaints during the debates on this Estimate from the Opposition with regard to the fact that because of the peculiar arrangements that have to be made to facilitate the front bench Members of the Opposition, whose attendance is of such a sporadic nature that my introductory speech came in three instalments, but the speeches that were made on the Estimate show, I think, that even though the Opposition got this statement in easy stages they still did not have sufficient interest to read it and if they had got the whole lot together, I suppose they would have taken even less trouble in regard to it.

As regards this most important aspect of the Department, housing, I dealt, on the Taoiseach's Estimate, with some of the more glaring mis-apprehensions under which the Opposition labour, or pretend to be labouring. At the same time I know that in concluding this debate I shall be expected to go into this most important aspect of the Department's activities in some greater detail. In 1964 the Government issued a White Paper on housing which stated the problem confronting the country at the time. In the financial year 1964-65. the total number of houses completed was 9,679. In the White Paper the Government set a target of 12,000 to 14,000 new dwellings per year by 1970. This target was based on an assessment of the existing need for houses and the need to keep the building industry on a rising gradient of output, and on the growth in the economy which it was reasonable to expect and which, although the Opposition do not realise it because their approach is too casual and superficial to consider such things is an absolute essential if we are to get to grips with the problem.

In 1964 it was clear that we had got over the collapse of the building industry that took place in 1957. Local authorities throughout the country were by that time responding to Government urgings to expand the provision of houses, acquisition of sites and so on. The building capacity of the industry was again expanding following its drastic reduction in the economic collapse of 1956-57 and this figure of 9,679 completions in 1964-65 compared with 5.976 in 1961-62 which was the year in which the cumulative effect of the three Coalition years during which there was no activity in regard to the long process that is necessary in order to start a building scheme, was felt; the three years during which the only housing activity was the automatic progress of the plans for the schemes that were arranged by Fianna Fáil from 1951 to 1954, accompanied by the erosion of the capital-providing capacity of the country; the three years during which there were no arrangements made to have any continuity in the supply of land, plans and money which were so improvidently used up.

This recovery which, as I said, was already apparent in 1964 because it had been a sustained recovery since 1961-62, has continued since then with just one slight and temporary deviation last year when we were affected by the world-wide shortage of capital. The figures for completions are: in 1961-62, 5,976 houses completed; in 1962-63, 7,217; 1963-64, 7,831; in 1964-65, 9,679; in 1965-66, 11,255; and in 1966-67, there was a slight falling-off to 10,984. But this year there will be a satisfactory return to the upward trend of at least 11,700 houses.

Opposition Deputies have been trying to represent the year 1965-66 as a year of economic crisis. We freely admit that it was a year of economic difficulty such as every country experiences occasionally but the effect of these economic difficulties on housing output is, I think, a very appropriate yardstick to measure whether or not there was a crisis. The drop in output in 1967, if it is compared with 1965-66 when this crisis was supposed to have developed was a mere 2.4 per cent. There was a drop in production of houses to that extent following the year of this acute crisis about which we are told. This compares with a drop of 44.5 per cent in 1957-58 and a further drop of 33.5 per cent in 1958-59 following the Coalition crisis of 1956-57.

(Cavan): You are now back at the 1957 stage.

It is only a year after the crisis that the effects are felt in regard to the number of houses completed. We had a drop of 2.4 per cent after this so-called crisis whereas the Coalition had a drop of 44.5 per cent followed by a drop of 33.5 per cent. The upward trend in our case has already resumed because we shall have at least 11,700 houses completed this year——

(Cavan): I thought the Minister said that it took three years to recover?

Yes, it does when you do not make preparations, when you are only using up the plans, land and money that was left to you by the Fianna Fáil Government but in this case we have that process completed——

(Cavan): The fact is that you are now back at the 1957 stage.

In our case we took care of the difficulties, dealt with them when they arose and it was possible for the upward trend to be resumed immediately so that the so-called Fianna Fáil crisis of 1955-56 produced a drop of 2.4 per cent followed by an immediate increase whereas in 1956-57 we had a drop of 44.5 per cent followed by a further drop of 33.5 per cent.

If what happened in 1965-66 was a crisis then I think a word has not yet been invented to describe what happened in 1956-57. Perhaps we could say that a drop of 2.4 per cent followed by an immediate return to the upward trend is a Fianna Fáil size crisis and a drop of 44.5 per cent followed by a further drop of 33.5 per cent is a Coalition size crisis.

With this record of sustained and continuous progress and with the upward turn of the country's economy this year and with the Fianna Fáil commitment so forcibly expressed by the Taoiseach that it impressed even the Opposition, it is obvious, when we have already reached the stage of 11,700 completions this year, that we are going to reach the target set in 1964 of completions at the rate of 12,000 to 14,000 by 1970. It is, in fact, reasonable to think in terms of the higher of these two figures. There can be no clearer proof, I think, of the Government's absolute dedication to the solution of this problem than the fact that while overall national output between 1961 and 1966 rose at an average annual rate of 3.3 per cent, the production of houses rose at an annual average rate of 17 per cent. If further proof is needed, I would again direct attention to the fact that this year's State capital investment in housing at £25 million is almost a quarter of the total State capital expenditure of £109 million. This is, of course, as Deputy Reynolds mentioned, by far the highest figure of capital for house building ever provided by the Government. Last year's figure of £21.15 million was also a record.

This is not by any means the total capital expenditure on housing. The amount provided by building societies and assurance companies has increased from £7.2 million in 1962 to £12 million in 1967. The total from these three sources—the State, building societies and assurance companies— has gone from £18.34 million in 1962/63 to £37 million in 1967/68. When account is taken of capital from other sources, such as banks and personal savings, the total capital expenditure is well over £40 million in this year.

It is necessary, I agree, to continue to increase this amount. It is necessary to try to divert expenditure from less urgent building activities to the urgent sphere of low-cost housing. But it is quite clear, it is indisputable, from these figures that the country as a whole is making a major effort to grapple with the situation. As I said, it should be possible and it is eminently desirable that the efforts made be even further stepped up according as improvements in the economy make it possible. But it is nonsense to suggest our State capital resources can be commandeered and devoted to this one great social problem. It is nonsense to suggest, even if this were done, that success could be achieved even in this one field and even at the expense of everything else. It is no solution for any problem to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. On the contrary, it must be nurtured. That is why we succeeded in getting continuous progress in these things, because we realise that. The Opposition either do not or are unable to look after the economy. But to starve economic undertakings of the capital necessary for development— and that is the only suggestion I heard from the Opposition—is the surest way of turning the present progress being made in all aspects of social welfare into reverse.

The only way to ensure the continuation and to make possible the acceleration of the progress is to increase the earnings of the community. It is because this was not appreciated by the Coalition Government that we have so much leeway to make up. The leeway is being made up with increasing rapidity. The only danger is that the Opposition Parties might ever again get an opportunity to mishandle the country's finances as they did in the past. But, luckily for the country, it becomes clearer that with every opportunity the people get of expressing their opinion this danger becomes more and more remote. One of the results of the success with which the housing drive was kept at a high level during our recent economic difficulties and of the indications given by the people at byelections that the country is to remain in responsible hands is that there is a new feeling of confidence in the building industry and in local authorities. Land is being acquired and developed for sites, plans are being made and the economic growth now taking place is a guarantee that an increasingly high level of house building can and will be attained.

We had a lot of talk about the position in Dublin. The population of Dublin has been increasing. According to the census of 1956 it was 539,476. In 1961, after the Coalition emigration, it was down to 537,448. In 1966 it was 568,772. Naturally, it is there that the housing problem is most acute. I may say that the increase in population between 1961 and 1966 was greater than in any period since at least as far back as 1900. This reflects increasing prosperity in the country, and indeed there was also an overall increase in population in the country as a whole.

I suppose then, since the housing problem is eminently most acute in Dublin, it was natural that the Opposition speakers would concentrate on Dublin. The problem in the capital city is of formidable proportions and it should not be necessary to exaggerate it as was done. In order that the subject may be dealt with in a reasonable way, I think the first thing to do is to state the problem with regard to corporation housing as it exists, according to the factual, statutory assessment of housing needs carried out by Dublin Corporation under section 53 of the Housing Act, 1966. We will then be able to compare the actual need with the present programme of the corporation and the future prospects instead of dealing with figures which Opposition spokesmen have apparently invented to suit themselves.

According to this statutory assessment of housing needs there is a total accumulated need in Dublin for 8,518 local authority dwellings. This includes all types of housing needs, such as unfit or overcrowded dwellings and families living involuntarily with other households. There are 4,752 families on the approved waiting list. That is the situation. With regard to the programmes on hands, including the Ballymun scheme of 3,021 dwellings, 1,403 of which have been handed over, at 31st December, 1967, the corporation had 2,982 dwellings in progress. This included 1,122 houses and 1,680 flats. These 2,982 dwellings included 1,618 in the Ballymun project, while a total of 1,524 dwellings had been completed within the period 1st April, 1967, to 31st December, 1967. That 1,524 included 1,059 dwellings handed over at Ballymun. In addition to the houses which were in progress, tenders for 1,129, including 358 tenant purchase houses were approved since the 1st April, 1967. In the same period approval was given to acceptance of tenders for 222 flats and proposals for schemes in various stages of planning for a further 2,833 dwellings including 1,210 houses and 288 flats in the Kilbarrack area.

In addition, the corporation were in process of acquiring sites for a further 1,370 dwellings to accommodate persons on their approved waiting list. So that there are then 2,982 dwellings in progress and 376 at tender stage, making a total of 3,358, while in planning there are, as I have said, 2,833. So that, between dwellings in progress, at tender stage and in planning, the total is 6,191, which is considerably more than the present approved waiting list and these should certainly all be completed within the next two or three years. In addition to that, the corporation, as I said, are acquiring sites or have acquired sites, for 1,370 more dwellings. This is a total of 7,647.

The average number of vacancies occurring in Dublin Corporation housing estates is about 550 per annum and when this is taken into account it is quite clear that the present accumulated need of 8,518 dwellings should be accommodated in the next three or four years but, of course, more dwellings will constantly be needed as time goes on. It is, therefore, essential that the process of land acquisition and the preparation of plans should continue at full speed and I am glad to say that the corporation is making very good progress in this regard.

While, then, the problem in Dublin is, as I said, still a major one, it is quite clear that it is within sight of being reduced to manageable proportions. With the increasing number of houses becoming obsolescent, with higher living standards and with more marriages taking place and the natural increase in population I do not expect that despite our best efforts any of us will reach the stage where there is no longer a need for quite a considerable amount of local authority house building and also for private building in the Dublin area. Indeed, from the employment point of view this is just as well since if housing needs were fully and finally met and house building stopped there would be an enormous slump, as was evidenced by the dramatic slump and disastrous disruption of the building programme that occurred in 1956-57.

It is estimated that if house building were to stop more men would be thrown out of work than if the four biggest employers in industry closed down. Obviously, then, house building is an important factor in the country's economy and as such it is essential to keep it going at a high level of output, even apart from the urgency of the provision of houses. There need be no fear that even the satisfying of the present housing needs in Dublin will cause a slump in house building.

With regard to the prospects for house completions by Dublin Corporation in this financial year, the corporation published a report dated 6th June, 1967, in which they stated that they expected to complete a total of 1,635 dwellings in this financial year and allowing for vacancies in existing corporation dwellings they expect in 1967-68 to rehouse 2,185 families. This is a high figure and it will increase over the next year or two. To keep the number of families housed per annum at this high level after the Ballymun scheme comes to an end will obviously require a major effort by Dublin Corporation and for that reason I am glad to see so much progress being made in regard to the acquisition of sites. It is not sufficient to have a considerable number of dwellings in progress, as I said before. It is equally important to have more houses at planning stage and to have a supply of developed land available so that building activity can be maintained at a consistently high level. Excessive bursts of housing activity followed by slumps are bad both for the industry and for the solution of the housing problem.

Throughout this whole debate there was an effort by Opposition speakers to disclaim any responsibility by local authorities for housing progress in their area. Deputy Larkin who for years was Chairman of the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee until he abandoned his post this year was the outstanding example of this because he should have known better. Nobody knows better than Deputy Larkin that the initiative in regard to housing proposals must be taken at local authority level and, indeed, it was largely because of the difficulty of getting Dublin Corporation to take this initiative following on the collapse of their house building programme under the former Government that the provision of houses in the Dublin area lagged so much behind during the earlier years of the present Government. Deputy Larkin would have us believe that the members of the local authority are mere ciphers, but nobody knows better than he that the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation have the power either to promote or frustrate the housing policy of the Government. Nobody knows better than he the obstruction that can take place and how important resolutions dealing with housing matters can often have to wait for months while resolutions which are mere political playacting take up the time of the city council. One wonders, indeed, why exactly Deputy Larkin refused to continue as Chairman of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation.

Surely the Fianna Fáil Party had a majority in Dublin Corporation? Was not it your Party's responsibility to carry out the housing programme of Dublin Corporation?

If Deputy Treacy can find a time in the history of Dublin Corporation when this Party had a majority or a near majority on Dublin Corporation, let him produce the figures, because it never happened. There was never a time when there was not a Coalition majority in Dublin Corporation——

Face up to the responsibility.

——when they did not use their majority to waste the time of the city council in political playacting rather than getting on with their job.

You are still trying to find a scapegoat. Come on to 1968. Forget about the Coalition.

Do not worry.

(Interruptions.)

This is not an occasion when Deputy Treacy and Deputy Fitzpatrick can refuse to let me talk. This is a time when I am going to say what I want to say whether Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Treacy like it or not. The only way in which they will avoid hearing what I have to say this time is by going out. They will not shout me down because I will repeat it and will do so. Sit back and listen patiently. Take it if you can and, if you cannot, you have your remedy— get out.

It is rather unfair to attack a man who is not here.

I am going to deal with this situation. I am going to deal with the facts as they are and I am going to point out how they came about. I am going to deal with the misstatements that were made, whether Deputy Treacy and Deputy Fitzpatrick like it or not, not only on housing but on other things and if Deputy Treacy can stick it out long enough he will hear me dealing not only with Dublin but also with regional water schemes, with the schemes that he said ground to a halt when this Government took over, schemes which he implied were in operation before this Government took over, although even he with his limited knowledge must know that the whole idea of regional water schemes developed only under this Government and were first introduced. I will eventually come to regional water schemes whether it is today or tomorrow or next week and no matter how much Deputy Treacy and Deputy Fitzpatrick shout and roar on this occasion I am going to continue until I deal with all the subjects to my satisfaction.

(Cavan): It would suit you better if you sent down the money to pay for the schemes.

You will not avoid hearing it by interrupting. I am going to say it.

The Minister concluding.

I am going to say it and that is all. It is all a question of whether you want to hear it today, tomorrow or next week, but you are going to hear it unless you want to go out of the House.

(Cavan): We want the money to pay for them.

So many misstatements have been made as to how the housing situation developed in Dublin that although I dealt with the matter on the Taoiseach's Estimate before the Recess, when the same misstatements were made, I think I should deal with it again. I want to establish that according to the housing authority—Dublin Corporation—in 1956-57, when the house building industry collapsed and when the Government's programme was disrupted due to the impossibility of getting money to meet commitments already entered into or to undertake new commitments, the need for housing was greater then than it is now.

In November, 1956, the Dublin Corporation over the name of Mr. T.C. O'Mahony, Deputy City Manager-Housing Director, issued a printed document entitled "Corporation of Dublin Housing Review". From this document I give the following quotation:

It will be noted that the provisional figures thrown up by the survey indicate a requirement of 14,114.

(Cavan): When was that?

November 1956. That was the time of which Deputy Dillon said that we had a brilliant team in office. He did not mention the Taoiseach but he mentioned the Tánaiste, Deputy William Norton, the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Pa O'Donnell and he mentioned the Minister for Finance, Deputy Gerard Sweetman. He did not mention himself but he also was in office in November, 1956.

(Cavan): Your Government published a document in 1958 which said that there were too many houses.

I want to quote this document again in case Deputy Fitzpatrick did not hear it.

(Cavan): I am going to quote your First Programme.

When you get the opportunity again. I am going to quote again from this document over the name of Mr. T.C. O'Mahony as follows:

It will be noted that the provisional figures thrown up by the survey indicate a requirement of 14,114.

Later on on the same page, page 7, the document goes on to say that it is understood that the provisional requirement figure of 14,114 referred to above does not contain any provision for an improvement in overcrowding standards. In effect, this would mean that families living in rooms, including single rooms, are not to be regarded as in need of rehousing except in the case of (a) where two or more persons of 12 years or over and of opposite sexes who are not living together as man and wife have to live in the same room and (b) where the free air space in any room is less than 400 cubic feet, the height of the room being taken as eight feet.

I understand that 2,611 families of three persons and over were found to be living in single rooms and that 1,225 families of five persons or over are living in two rooms were excluded from these provisional figures. If you add that figure of 2,611 to the figure of 1,225 you get a total of 3,836, and if you add that to the requirement of 14,114, you find that total housing requirements at that date, November 1956 amounted to 17,950.

(Cavan): Does the Minister accept that figure as accurate?

I am giving the figure produced in those documents.

(Cavan): Do you accept it?

Oh, yes. That figure was accepted by the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation, presided over by Deputy Larkin. It was not just a document supplied for the consideration of the corporation. It was a printed document published over the name of the Housing Director and Assistant City Manager, Mr. T.C. O'Mahony.

It is a figure that does not appear in your own "Housing Progress and Prospects".

In the year 1956-57, the result of the plans and acquisition of land initiated in the period 1951 to 1954 reached a high peak and, despite the fact that the economy collapsed towards the end of the year and building came almost to a halt, there were 1,564 dwellings completed by Dublin Corporation in that year. Of course, a lot of these were completed and occupied before November, 1956, but even if we ignore this, and treat the full 1,564 as reducing the need for houses as stated by the Housing Director, we are still left with 16,386 families in need of housing.

Deputy Dillon and other Opposition Deputies would have us believe that by the time they left office, this deficiency of 16,386 had been converted into a surplus of 1,500 without the building of a single additional house. In other words, we have to account for a total of 17,886 families in need of accommodation.

(Cavan): You agreed with Deputy Dillon in 1958. Will you allow me to say one thing and I will not interrupt you again?

No. I am going to deal with Deputy Dillon.

(Cavan): The homeless people of Dublin would rather hear you deal with 1968 than 1958.

Deputy Dillon spoke on 7th December, 1967 and here is what he had to say about that surplus of 1,500, at column 1770, volume 231, of the Official Report of 7th December, 1967:

In 1957 Fianna Fáil took office after three years of inter-Party Government. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass——

That shows Deputy Dillon's knowledge of affairs.

The then Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, addressed the House in July of that year on the Adjournment Debate. He said that Dublin Corporation told them they had too many houses in 1957. I am quoting Deputy Seán Lemass. I am not making any claim on behalf of the Government of which I was a member.

We all know Deputy Dillon is too modest to do that. I asked Deputy Dillon to give me the reference. He was not able to do it but, as Deputy Fitzpatrick may remember, he promised to send it to me. He sent me something all right eventually. Remember what he said: The then Taoiseach, Deputy Seán Lemass, in 1957. I pointed out to him later that Deputy Seán Lemass was not Taoiseach in 1957 and he then mended his hand and said he was Minister for Industry and Commerce; he was wrong in that, too. When he came to look it up this is what he produced: he wrote to me on 11th December. It took him four days to discover something remotely resembling what he had purported to give as a quotation. Eventually, after four days of research, Deputy Dillon unearthed this: he says the reference of the statement is to be found in volume 194, No. 11 of 11th April, 1962. This is the quotation which he alleged was made by the Taoiseach or the Minister for Industry and Commerce—he did not know which—in 1957.

"There was a stage two or three years ago when Dublin Corporation had 1,500 empty dwellings available for people who needed them ..." But there is no full stop. It continues: "... but, with the very rapid return of population from England to Dublin and the substantial reduction in emigration, that picture has now changed completely."

First of all, there is no full stop. Deputy Lemass, who was Taoiseach and not Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1962, went on to say:

... were available for people who needed them but, with the very rapid return of population from England to Dublin and the substantial reduction in emigration, that picture has now changed completely and Dublin Corporation is already finding itself in arrears with its housing programme, almost as much in arrears as they ever were.

We have been hearing a great deal of talk lately about the need of the Opposition Parties for research facilities. I think Deputy Dillon would find himself using these research facilities quite a lot if he makes demands like this upon them. I asked him to find a reference by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Adjournment Debate in 1957 and the research officer has apparently to start in 1957 and search for something remotely resembling what Deputy Dillon confidently gives as a quotation here; that research officer searches through the Official Reports until 1962 before he finds something that fits in and, even then, Deputy Dillon has to mutilate and disguise it in order to make it appear that he had been speaking factually.

I can assure Deputy Dillon that he does not have to remind me of the unprecedented rate of emigration that marked the collapse of the Coalition Government. In his contribution to the debate he also, as Deputy Fitzpatrick will, no doubt, remember, exhorted all and sundry to learn the lessons of the past. Far be it from me to minimise this huge volume of emigration, since I appreciate that, by doing so, I would be helping the people to forget the lesson they learned from the performance of the past Coalition Government. As Deputy Dillon knows, I thoroughly agree with him that the importance of the past is the lessons learned. But I must ask him was emigration, in fact, so high at that time that from Dublin city alone over and above the 1,564 families that were housed another 17,886 families eligible for and seeking corporation houses disappeared? And not just heads of families, but whole families. This figure would not include the large numbers who were purchasing their own homes and who could not meet the repayments and had to get out. It would not include single men. Neither would it include cases in which only heads of families went since, in such cases, the families were left to avail of the opportunity of all these vacant corporation houses. Deputy Dillon may find it hard to believe, because I am sure he has a vivid memory of the despair that covered the country at that time, that there were such cases, but, even in the despair which was so widespread at that time, there were people who retained some hope that a general election would restore the damaged economy and so not all of them completely abandoned the sinking ship and, in those cases, the application for a house still stood, since they took the risk, in the confidence that Fianna Fáil would get back at the first opportunity, of leaving their families behind them.

The fact of the matter is that, despite the high rate of emigration, the housing situation in Dublin was never solved and any Deputy who had any contact whatever with the people of Dublin at that time knows that at all times, even when there were large numbers of vacant corporation houses in every housing estate in Dublin, there were large numbers of families still in urgent need of accommodation, numbered in thousands rather than in hundreds.

The situation of large numbers of corporation houses remaining vacant over a considerable time developed in this way during that period: when a vacancy was offered to the first on the waiting list, there would be no response because the applicant had gone. The practice inevitably was to wait a reasonable time for a reply before assuming, for one reason or another, that the offer of accommodation was not being accepted. Then the vacancy would be offered to the next on the list, and so on. Very often it would be only on the fourth or fifth, or perhaps sixth offer, that an applicant would be found for the house as the family had not emigrated. The result was that the process of reletting vacant corporation houses —I fully agree with Deputy Dillon there were plenty of them—was a slow process. Often, by the time an applicant on the waiting list was found, the house would be so damaged by vandalism that it would be necessary to repair it before it could be let. And, all through that time, public representatives were inundated with requests from families living in insanitary and overcrowed conditions.

I agree that Dublin Corporation inexplicably misinterpreted this situation and the unjustified attitude of complacency in that body was an additional difficulty in getting the housing drive going again. First of all, the supply of land acquired under the urging of the previous Fianna Fáil Government had run out. The number of houses at planning stage was severely limited. The capacity of the building industry to achieve a high level of output had been greatly diminished. The result of all this was, as I have said, that it took three to four years to get increased housing activity under way in Dublin. But as I have shown, progress is now being made. Despite the collapse of the economy which caused the complete disruption of housing activity by local authorities in 1957, and despite the increased population in Dublin since then, Dublin Corporation's assessment is now that the problem is of smaller proportions than in November, 1956; and, as I have shown earlier, provided the corporation's present plans are vigorously pursued, the situation will be considerably eased within a few years. Outside Dublin city two places in which the housing deficiency is most acute are Cork and Limerick cities.

(Cavan): Before the Minister leaves Dublin, will he tell the people—8,000 according to him; 10,000 according to other people—when he proposes to house them?

If Deputy Fitzpatrick would listen, he would know I have already done that. Deputy Fitzpatrick was not listening; he just comes to life occasionally when he hears something that gets under his skin.

(Cavan): I have been listening.

I shall remind him again.

(Cavan): Do it now before you leave Dublin.

I gave you the figures. Read them. They are in the Official Report already.

(Cavan): Tht Minister is just bluffing.

They are in the Official Report.

(Cavan): That is not answering the people of Dublin who are crying out for houses.

The figures are there.

(Cavan): The Minister has not answered the question.

I have given the figures. It is out of order to repeat them.

(Cavan): The Minister talks about 1956 and 1957, but he will not talk about 1968.

I am not attempting to convince Deputy Fitzpatrick. That would be a ridiculous occupation on my part: I would not attempt it. I am not interested in doing that. I am just putting these facts on record, and they are there already. I do not need to put them on record again. In both of these cases, Cork and Limerick, the local authorities have made a projection of the probable housing need up to 1971. In both these cities the National Building Agency has arranged for the construction of large housing schemes, 1,800 dwellings in Cork and 600 in Limerick. These two schemes are intended to be in addition to the housing authorities' building programme. Building operations in both places will start shortly and when these two schemes are completed, and provided the corporations of Limerick and Cork can meet their own building targets, the projected housing need will be fully met within the time covered by the projection. In regard to other areas in the country, the position is that it has been possible to allow schemes to go ahead according as they were technically agreed, and all local authorities are in a position to tackle the shortage of houses in their area. I hope they will tackle it vigorously.

I do not want to create the impression that there is no problem with regard to financing the housing programme, either in regard to capital or current expenditure. Although, as the figures show, the expansion of the economy under the present Government has made it possible to provide continually increasing annual capital expenditure for housing, our resources are not unlimited. We can, however, feel confident, as I have said, maybe at one of the times when Deputy Fitzpatrick could not take it and ran out of the House——

(Cavan): The Minister is prepared to stoop to anything. The Minister knows I have been sitting here all the time.

I am sorry. It was Deputy Treacy. Then you were asleep.

(Cavan): Acting the guttersnipe will not get you anywhere.

On a point of correction, I have been sitting here for some hours and left the House only on one occasion.

If you want to hear what I have to say, you will sit for some more hours.

I left the House on only one occasion. The Minister is misrepresenting——

The Labour benches were empty for a long time.

The Minister to conclude, without interruption.

As I say, we can feel confident of meeting the target of annual completions set for 1970 and of sustaining a high level of housing activity thereafter. We are almost up to the figure of 12,000 already. We shall have at least 11,700 completions this year, and the target we set ourselves for 1970 was an annual output of between 12,000 and 14,000. That programme we have set ourselves is both ambitious and realistic. It takes account of the urgent housing need that exists and the duty of the rest of the community, or as some people who really want to mislead put it, the Government's duty, to ensure that people will not be left without houses because of their inability to provide them for themselves. It also takes account of the resources of the economy, and this is essential if progress is to be made, whatever may be said by street corner agitators who have no real interest in the problem but whose only interest is in creating a disturbance. Admittedly, there is in the Government's approach the presumption that some responsibility rests with the individual to endeavour to help himself if he can. That is wrong, we are told by people who, having themselves opted out of playing any part in the solution of this problem, pontificate on it at street corners and university tea parties and castigate those people who have dedicated themselves to the work of building houses as distinct from talking about them.

There is, we are told, an inherent right to marry, beget children and have a home. There is no question of making any effort to provide a home. Far from it. Indeed, the making of such an effort, we are told, would be an occasion of sin. I have not had the inestimable advantage of a Jesuit education, but I remember the Irish Christian Brothers telling me that it was my duty to try to avoid these things myself. Apparently if I had been lucky enough to be educated at Clongowes Wood, I would have got the much less onerous advice that it was the Government's duty to avoid them for me. The old idea of the responsibility of marriage is apparently replaced by this inherent right to marry, beget children and have a home, and the responsibility is on other individuals to have houses on tap.

Many people whom my colleague, Deputy Dunne, described as modern heroes have, when they decided to marry, first of all, set about the difficult task of accumulating the deposit on a house, and I share Deputy Dunne's admiration for them. I am not prepared to agree that the finger of scorn should be pointed at them for, as alleged, subjecting themselves to a period of temptation. The Government and the local authorities have been and are making every effort to have adequate housing available but, despite great efforts, we are, I am afraid, still some distance from the stage where it would be feasible for individuals who marry to make as little provision for the future as the lilies of the field.

As I said, I do not want to create the impression that there is no problem in regard to finance. The annual cost of financing local authority housing is met in three ways, by rent, by subsidy from the State and by subsidy from the rates; in other words, it is met partly by the tenant, partly by the taxpayer and partly by the ratepayer. I often wonder do Opposition Deputies ever pause to take an overall look at their approach to this matter and, if so, do they not see how ridiculous this approach is. On this Estimate they have complained about the burden of rates and the burden of rents. At the same time they demanded increased housing activity and at the appropriate time they will complain again about the burden of taxation and, at that time again, they will demand increased housing activity because this is the popular thing to do.

Now, the capital for the building of houses is obtained by loan from the community and the arrangement with the lenders is that the money will be repaid on a given date and that interest will be paid in the meantime. If the Opposition Deputies know of some source from which the money to honour this commitment can be obtained, other than the sources I have mentioned, I wish they would let us know, but I do not think they do. Certainly they did not find the money from any other source when they were over here. The fact is that they treat this important matter of the provision of houses in the same cynical and irresponsible way as they deal with most other matters. Their concern is solely to say the popular thing on every detail and their contempt for the intelligence of the people is so complete that the incongruous result of taking their attitudes to different aspects of the problem as a whole does not appear to them to be important.

They know that to the rent-paying tenant low rents are more attractive than high rents and so they demand low rents. They know that increasing rates are a cause of great resentment and so they demand reduced rates. They know that no one likes to pay increased taxes and so they complain that the country is overburdened by taxation. They know that the people as a whole want the housing situation solved and so, having demanded all these reductions in the collection of money from every possible source, they also scream for the provision of more houses. Although they have demanded all the popular things and although we tell the people that housing and other social services can only be financed through the collection of portion of their earnings in one way or another, and that we intend to finance them on an ever-increasing scale in this way, we win the bye-elections and the general elections and the people who have demanded everything popular lose them.

The reason is that contrary to the ingrained belief of the Opposition Parties, the people are not fools and the people have done what Deputy Dillon said they should do, they have learned the lesson of the past. They know that we tell them the truth, that everything cannot be done at once, and they know that the Opposition approach is cynical and irresponsible. They know from experience it is only under Fianna Fáil that social progress is made whether in local government matters, social welfare, in health or in education, and that the result of listening to Opposition promises of everything for everybody at no cost to anybody has been disaster in the past and will be disaster if it ever happens again in the future.

The annual cost of providing a typical four-roomed local authority house costing £2,400 is £200. The total subsidy payable by the State has grown from £0.6 million annually in 1948-49 to an estimated £3.5 million in the current financial year while the contribution from the rates has grown from £1.05 million in 1948-49 to an estimated £3 million in the current financial year. In other words, the amount of contribution by the State —and I always like to emphasise that the contribution by the State is the contribution by the taxpayer—has been increasing at a much faster rate than the contribution from the rates. This Government recognise that a considerable portion of the cost of local authority housing will have to be met by central and local taxation and we do not try to fool the people by talking about contributions from the Exchequer as if the Exchequer meant anything else but the pockets of the people. Neither have we attempted to conceal the fact that it is only fair to everybody that a reasonable part of the cost should be contributed by rents. If all these elements are to be reduced, as the Opposition promise, then the output of houses must drop. The frustrating thing for the Opposition is that the people know this and will not believe them when they try to convince them otherwise. They know that when the Opposition say the Government will not give more money for this or that purpose, the fact is that the Government have not deemed it feasible to extract more from their pockets for these purposes.

Our objective in the matter of housing is, as I said, to reach a stage where a house will be provided for every family, irrespective of whether or not they can pay for it. If this objective is to be achieved, it is essential that there should be a reasonable system of rents which will be fair to everybody concerned, both the tenants of the houses provided and the rest of the community who have to contribute in one form or another the difference in cost between the actual cost of providing the house and the amount contributed by way of rents.

I have already mentioned that my colleague in County Dublin, Deputy Dunne, has described as modern heroes the young people with modest incomes who pinch and scrape to accumulate deposits which, I agree, in most cases are of a frightening size and who then undertake the substantial outgoings which will reduce their standard of living for the greater part of their lives in order to acquire homes for themselves and their families. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Dunne. It requires exceptional qualities in present circumstances to set about the task of accumulating anything from £400 to £800 and to face the prospect of repaying a loan at current interest rates and, in addition, rates on valuations up to £20 or more and possibly ground rent as well. Where I part company with Deputy Dunne is when he and his colleagues consider it a crime to expect people, with at least as good and often much higher incomes but who for one reason or another did not make the same exceptional effort to save, to pay a reasonable rent for a local authority house. When differential rents schemes in which the maximum rent is related to the cost of providing the houses are attacked as unjust, this is the same thing as demanding that those who are making the commendable effort of purchasing their own homes should be asked to contribute still more by way of rates and taxes to the cost of providing houses for people whose income is at least as high as their own and in many cases higher.

We have had great play made about the maximum rent payable under the latest differential rents scheme adopted by Dublin Corporation. I want to point out that this scheme applies only to houses first let after 28th February, 1966 and to new tenancies after that date in dwellings which had been first let after 1st January, 1954. Of course no one thinks of mentioning that this maximum rent would not be payable by a family with two children unless the income exceeded £27 10s Od per week. Deputy Dunne knows that many people with much smaller incomes than this are at present paying much more for houses which they are purchasing with the aid of Government and local authority grants and house purchase loans, after having endured the hardship of saving the money for the deposit. Deputy Larkin was one of those who complained most bitterly about the Dublin differential rents scheme. I hope he will not think me unkind if I remind him that this scheme applies only to houses let after 28th February, 1966, because I rejected the proposal from the corporation to have it applied to all, which he as Chairman of the Housing Committee concurred in.

Differential rent is a social service of a very commendable kind. It is also an essential factor in our policy of providing a home for every family, irrespective of capacity to pay for it. Those who campaign against the system do a grave disservice to the community, and particularly to the less well off sections of the community. I can remember during the recession at the end of the last period of the Coalition Government, people on fixed rents who suddenly found themselves out of employment and who could have got substantial rent reductions by asking to be put on the differential rents scheme were terrorised by unscrupulous agitators who were conducting a campaign against the adjustment of rents to capacity to pay, and who succeeded in convincing these less sophisticated tenants that the differential rents system which would have made life easier for them was something to be avoided like the plague. Differential rent is a practical form of enlightened social welfare. Fixed rents schemes which are so highly regarded by the Opposition are reactionary, unfair and unchristian.

Without differential rent, really poor people could not be adequately housed. Just as a means test is an essential feature of the just distribution of social assistance, so differential rents are an absolute essential if housing subsidies which are provided by the rest of the community are to be equitably used. When Labour and Fine Gael Deputies attack differential rent, they are, in fact, asking that out of the limited amount which it is possible for the rest of the community to provide for this purpose higher income families should get the same assistance as lower income families. This is a proposition which I reject completely. It may be that those requiring the maximum amount of assistance because of their needs are a minority, but I do not agree with Labour and Fine Gael Deputies that that is any reason why they should not get more assistance towards the cost of providing them with housing than families who are better off and better able to pay reasonable rents.

Differential rent is in fact a form of social insurance since, by providing that outgoings in the form of rent will fall when the income is reduced, it helps towards the maintenance of a reasonable standard of living in such circumstances. In view of the limited capacity, as I said, of the rest of the community to subsidise housing, either through rates or taxation, it is obvious that if there are to be nominal rents for poorer people, then the rents must be higher for those who are better able to pay. The State subsidy for new local authority houses is equivalent to a maximum capital grant of £1,100 and the subsidy from rates is equivalent to a capital grant of from £400 to £600. As I pointed out also, the loss on local authorities which is met by the Government and the local authorities is at present £6.5 million per annum and is still going.

Obviously then, arguments against requiring those who are able to pay, to pay reasonable rents are equivalent to arguments against the provision of houses for those without them and who are not able to provide them for themselves. Apart from all this, under the 1966 Housing Act, tenants of local authority houses may purchase their houses on very favourable terms. Nobody, therefore, who has to pay maximum differential rent in present circumstances has any legitimate cause for complaint, since he can opt to purchase his house as other people in similar and, indeed, in worse financial circumstances are doing, but in his case he can do so without going through the period of hardship which is necessary in order to accumulate a substantial deposit.

This question of rents is another example of how Opposition Deputies try to have it both ways. Deputy Treacy is a very good example of this. Indeed, it is very hard to know exactly what Deputy Treacy supports or does not support. In the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government in 1966-67, as reported at column 353, volume 224 of the Official Report of 29th September, 1966, Deputy Treacy said:

I agree with the principle of differential rents. This is a principle for which the Labour Party, in the main, have been responsible. It was a principle first devised by the late Jim Larkin who, in order to rid this city of the slums and squalor, propounded the theory that there should be a differential rent system which would ensure that anyone who was in need of rehousing would be capable of taking a house and of paying the rent, that he would not be deprived of a house by reason of inability to pay the rent. This is a good Christian principle to which to adhere.

I agree, but I do not think Deputy Treacy agrees because on 29th September, 1966, he said that and since then he has been reported on 7th October, 1967, in the Clonmel Nationalist as saying:

The Labour representatives have consistently opposed the whole idea of a graded rents scheme on the grounds that it is unfair, inequitable and unjust.

The Minister is obviously quoting me out of context. The Minister did not quote my major speech on the Department of Local Government.

I am coming to that. I have that quotation.

I have been absolutely consistent.

I will quote what Deputy Treacy said.

To quote me out of context is unfair.

Admittedly, the two contradictory statements were separated by a period of over a year but Deputy Treacy got away with it on that occasion and so he has become a little bolder now.

Read my speech. The Minister has picked a snippet from the local press.

Speaking in this debate, he made these two contradictory statements in the same breath. I think it was on 5th December that Deputy Treacy made his contribution.

I have the quotation here.

Give it in its entirety.

The Deputy spoke for an hour and a half and I will not quote the lot. As reported at column 1424, volume 231 of the Official Report Deputy Treacy said:

The differential renting system is a vicious one. We in the Labour Party have always supported the principle of the differential rent.

I dealt at some length with the matter.

They were two succeeding sentences so I do not know what Deputy Treacy supports but obviously he and his colleagues want to have an each way bet in this matter of differential rents.

The Minister ran away from the principle when 40,000 people marched to this House.

Instead of complaining about the necessary inquiries that have to be made to administer the social service of differential rents——

You backed down very fast.

Deputies would be doing a greater service to the community if instead of complaining about these inquiries they would encourage tenants to give the necessary information factually and if they refrained from sympathising with people who endeavour to avoid their responsibilities in this matter and unload them on to the shoulders of people who are in many cases less well able to bear them.

You are using differential rents as a revenue raising gimmick to fill the empty coffers of the local authorities.

Just like you, we have not yet found a way of building houses without money. You were able to build them without raising revenue for a couple of years when you used up the revenue-producing capacity that we had created and as soon as that was eroded, you collapsed, and so did the building industry.

Talk about 1968 for a change.

In view of the fact that the Labour Party, in particular, have shown themselves in this debate to be antagonistic to the idea of differential rents or rents related to capacity to pay, I think I would be doing them a service if I pointed out that the Party to which they nominally belong published a booklet in June, 1967, which indicated acceptance of the principle that rents should be related to what people could afford to pay. I do not know who prepared this policy but one thing is obvious to anyone reading the debates on this Estimate, that is, that the Labour TDs had no hand, act or part in it. I realise that this document is only in existence since June, 1967 which is not a very long time and that during that time the Labour Party have been busy digesting something else that they have only just found out. Somebody has told them that they are now a socialist Party; they became socialist overnight. I suppose it would be too much to expect them, in addition to accustoming themselves to that newly acquired knowledge, also to digest the fact that they are committed in their published document to accept differential rents.

Still the document is in existence for seven months and I think it would be no harm if whoever did prepare the policy would some time explain it to the Labour TDs so that they would not display such complete ignorance of their official published policy.

There is no question of difference in the matter. It is the administration of the differential rents schemes that we oppose. That is what the Minister has failed to make clear.

The Deputy spoke of what he called "the odious means test". That is one aspect of it. Perhaps some time when Deputy Treacy has the floor and is in order, he will explain to us——

I shall not resort to lies as you are doing.

——how he will relate rents to capacity to pay without discovering what the capacity to pay is, what the tenant's income is or, in other words, without the "odious means test".

You are pastmasters at means tests. You gave the old age pensioners five shillings——

I am proud of the fact that each year when I was Minister for Social Welfare I increased not only the non-contributory old age pensions —the only social welfare service the Opposition have ever heard of, apparently—but also every other social welfare service in every single year and while Deputy McEntee was Minister for Social Welfare——

At this stage could we allow the Minister to conclude without interruption and without a lot of cross-chat?

Another example of the inconsistent and insincere approach of the Opposition parties to the whole question of local authority housing is their attitude to the purchase terms for local authority houses under section 90 of the Housing Act, 1956, which are briefly that for tenancies of 20 years or more, these houses may be sold for 55 per cent of market or replacement value in rural areas and for 70 per cent of this value in urban areas. The same Deputies who pretend to want an increased rate of provision of new houses claim it is exorbitant for local authorities to obtain 55 per cent of what it will cost to replace the houses they sell. Surely they know that if houses are to be given away for less than this the result will be to gravely diminish the capacity to finance new houses? In other words, this is, in effect, yet another attack on the provision of houses for those without them.

Despite the fact that no Opposition Deputy forgot to demand a faster rate of new housing, the fact is that on every aspect of the problem, their suggestions, if adopted, would inevitably result in the provision of less new houses. It is easy to demand more houses but anyone of normal intelligence will see that the problem is largely a financial one. He will also see that to accompany a demand for more houses with opposition to every measure designed to assist the financing of the housing programme is a cynical and dishonest pretence. It is quite clear from this debate that the only possible effect of the Opposition approach to this important matter is to obstruct the housing drive.

With regard to rural local authority houses, 69,500 or 78 per cent of the total of 89,720 cottages had been vested already at the 31st March, 1967, and in the case of a further ten per cent applications for vesting were made before that date. I have not got the exact figures, but I am sure many more applications were received before 30th September, 1967, so that comparatively few will fall to be dealt with under the Housing Act, 1966. With regard to rural houses under the Labourers Act, 1936, the county council must make a purchase scheme for every cottage provided by them before 1st January, 1966, while for cottages provided after that date the council may make a purchase scheme. Obviously then the vast majority of tenants of rural cottages have already had ample opportunity to apply to have their cottages vested. The terms of sale, of which I have indicated I will approve, for the purpose of these schemes under the Housing Act of 1966 are a discount from market or replacement value of three per cent for every year after the first five which the tenant has been in occupation of a local authority house subject to a maximum discount of 45 per cent. I an satisfied that no reasonable person could consider these terms less than generous.

With regard to the 98,033 urban houses, the position is different. Up to 31st March, 1967, 7,100 of these had been sold or vested in accordance with circulars which were issued in 1953 and 1956, and a total of 6,300 had been disposed of under other provisions. The 1953 circular notified local authorities that the Minister for Local Government would be prepared to approve of schemes for the sale of their houses to tenants for the higher of (1) the outstanding balance on the loan from which the erection of the houses was financed, or (2) the annual rent exclusive of rates multiplied by the appropriate minimum number of years which was calculated in this way: For houses provided prior to 31st March, 1922, the number of years was ten, for houses provided between 1st April, 1922, and 31st March, 1931, the number of years was 15, for houses provided in the period 1st April, 1931, to 31st March, 1946, the number of years was 20 and for houses provided after 31st March, 1946, the number of years was 30.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1st February, 1968.
Barr
Roinn